Partnerships Across Campuses and Throughout Communities: Community Engaged Research in California’s Central San Joaquin Valley

  • Simón E. WefferEmail author
  • James J. Mullooly
  • Dari E. Sylvester
  • Robin M. DeLugan
  • Marcia D. Hernandez
Part of the Community Quality-of-Life Indicators book series (CQLI, volume 4)


In this chapter the co-authors explore the process of conducting social indicator research in California’s Central San Joaquin Valley. The “Central Valley” is notable for the high level of ethnic diversity, deep economic disparity, unemployment and underemployment, and blend of rural and agricultural communities with urban areas experiencing various levels of gentrification and development. The Partnership for the Assessment of Community (PAC) project was created to serve as a model to measure the changes over a 10-year period in the Central Valley. The PAC research team consists of faculty from different universities in the Central Valley and student-researchers. A description of the pilot study of PAC research is discussed in this chapter. The co-authors offer a critical read of the promises and challenges for researchers interested in conducting community-based research with students across multiple sites. We offer a summary of successful ventures as well as valuable lessons of what did not work for the initial study and salient issues for future social indicator research endeavors in the Central Valley.


Social Cohesion Social Indicator Civic Engagement Collective Efficacy Community Stakeholder 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson, E. (1990). Streetwise: Race, class and change in an urban community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. The American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley. (2006, October). The San Joaquin Valley: California’s 21st century opportunity. Strategic Action Proposal.Google Scholar
  4. Cobb, C., & Rixford, C. (1998). Lessons learned from the history of social indicators. San Francisco: Redefining Progress.Google Scholar
  5. Congressional Research Services. (2005). California’s San Joaquin valley: A region in Transition. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services/Library of Congress.Google Scholar
  6. DeLugan, R. M., Hernandez, M., Sylvester, D., & Weffer, S. E. (2010). The dynamics of social indicator research for California’s Central Valley in transition. Social Indicators Research, 100(2), 185–207.Google Scholar
  7. Dluhy, M., & Swartz, N. (2006). Connecting knowledge and policy: The promise of community indicators in the United States. Social Indicators Research, 79, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Docherty, I., Goodlad, R., & Pattison, R. (2001). Civic culture, community and citizen participation in contrasting neighborhoods. Urban Studies, 38, 2225–2250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  10. Epley, D. R., & Mohan, M. (2008). A method of assembling cross-sectional indicators into a community quality-of-life. Social Indicators Research, 88, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fujimoto, I. (1998). Getting to know the Central Valley. Davis: California Institute for Rural Studies.Google Scholar
  12. Fujimoto, I. (2010). Dynamic mosaic: California Central Valley Partnership’s collaborative multiethnic approach to organizing immigrant communities. PhD Dissertation. Cornell University June 2010.Google Scholar
  13. Fujimoto, I., & Sandoval, G. (2005). Central Valley Partnership: A collaborative multi-ethnic approach to organizing immigrant communities. UC Davis Law Review, 2004–2005, 1021–1045.Google Scholar
  14. Fujimoto, I., & Sandoval, G. (2006, November). Tapping into California’s Central Valley’s hidden wealth: It’s rich cultural capital. Asian American Law Journal, University of California.Google Scholar
  15. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kitchen, P., & Muhajarine, N. (2008). Quality-of-life research: New challenges and new opportunities. Social Indicators Research, 85, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Larson, O., et al. (1978). Values and beliefs of rural people. In T. R. Ford (Ed.), Rural U.S.A.: Persistence and change. Ames: Iowa State Press.Google Scholar
  18. Marinrogers, N., Rausch, E., & Mattessich, P. (2009). Communities that don’t bowl in the fog. Contexts, 8(1), 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Minkler, M. (2009). Promoting healthy public policy through community-based participatory research: Ten case studies. A project of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health and Policy Link.Google Scholar
  20. Minkler, M., & Hancock, T. (2003). Community-driven asset identification and issue selection. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community based participatory research for health (pp. 135–154). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Muhajarine, N., Labonte, R., Williams, A., & Randall, J. (2008). Person, perception, and place: What matters to health and quality-of-life. Social Indicators Research, 85, 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sherman, J. (2008). Coping with rural poverty: Economic survival and moral capital in rural America. Social Forces, 85(2), 891–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Small, M. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Snyder, A. R., & McLaughlin, D. K. (2004). Female-headed families and poverty in rural America. Rural Sociology, 69(1), 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swain, D., & Hollar, D. (2003). Measuring progress: Community indicators and the quality of life. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(7), 789–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409–427.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simón E. Weffer
    • 1
    Email author
  • James J. Mullooly
    • 2
  • Dari E. Sylvester
    • 4
  • Robin M. DeLugan
    • 3
  • Marcia D. Hernandez
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Center for Latino and Latin American StudiesNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyCalifornia State University, FresnoFresnoUSA
  3. 3.Anthropology ProgramUniversity of California MercedMercedUSA
  4. 4.Sociology DepartmentUniversity of the PacificStocktonUSA

Personalised recommendations